Sampras vs Federer - thoughts after seeing 2 live exhibiiton matches part 2/2

desmondchan

New User
3) Now the final match. No fancy machines were on site to check serving speed but it was apparent both players served just as well as they did in the 2nd match. The difference was movement. Especially for Pete when he knew he didn’t need to save his energy and he ran for every ball he could possibly get. The crowd was also a factor. Almost everyone was rooting for Pete and even though there were some Roger’s fans there they were very quite. The crowd did a big job in carrying Pete through the 1st tie breaker. There was no “letting Pete win” from Roger. Watch closely and you would notice Roger attacked almost all Pete’s 2nd serves whenever he found his chances. He made Pete ran for his shots. There was no mercy! Also he wanted to go head-to-head with Pete and wanted to win in a very convincing fashion. Whenever Pete scored a winner on the net, it was crystal clear; black and white; that he was in control of that point and won. (Unlike when some current pros win some rallies against Roger by hitting miracle shots which you wonder whether they could do that again…). Remember they had a long rally in backhand slices? You could see they want to beat each other in each other’s game. You have to be blind of not noticing that if you were there in person.
Lastly my humble view is it is an insult to Pete if folks say Roger just let him win but it will be a bigger insult to Roger himself. Nobody wants to beat Sampras more than Federer and you don’t need to be a rocket scientist to understand with their pedigree; status; skills and yes, friendship and respect for each other, they would have done their very best when playing each other. Otherwise, what’s the point of Roger inviting Pete to go half way around the world to play?

So who’s the better player? It really depends on how you define it. I still think even though today’s pros are stronger; faster (due to more resources available/advance in technology in physical/skills training, etc…) then ever before with better equipment (rackets and most importantly; the poly strings!!!), the guys just don’t know how to win! And that’s part of the factor that Roger will win more Grand Slams then Pete or anyone else. But having seen him playing live I am convinced with his talent; he could also very well be one of the bests to compete with past legends from any generations to win his fair share of slams. No doubt!

But if one want to figure one who would win more if Roger play against Pete both in their primes then here’s my take. Yes. Roger is a more complete player with more shots in his arsenal. But Pete also does what he does best (serve and volley) and it’s the fact that even when he is 36, he could still win his share of points in his match against Roger. So my view is it really depends on the surface and the background (the way they were being brought up/trained). French Open? Roger would win 9 out of 10 for sure. It’s not because Pete is less talented on clay, it’s just that being an American player in the 90s clay was just not the focus. I am sure if Pete grew up in Europe and had more exposure in clay, he could have achieved better results. Fast grass of Wimbledon? I would have to say Pete would edge Roger 6 to 4. The court in Macau was the fastest among the 3 hence Pete’s game edged Roger’s. But it’s fair to say the gap between them on grass is much smaller than on clay. Hardcourt in Aussie/US open? Again, it would depend on the speed and largely on the their conditions of the day.

So I guess Pete is right – no one would dominate each other if they play against each other during their prime. Last thought – to say Pete can’t beat Roger even in his prime is rubbish, but Roger also has the skills/hearts/qualities/results to be the greatest player of all time if that’s what the circumstances become. I am still a Pete’s fan but after seeing Roger live in action, I only respect and love the guy more than ever before!!
 

Mad iX

Semi-Pro
Well written. Although while I agree that Fed was trying to win, he was trying as hard as he could, ie. Wimbledon Final in the 5th set and break point down against Nadal. I don't think Fed had pushed so hard in a long time.
 

desmondchan

New User
Thanks for all the kind words. I jumped through hoops in order to get the tickets for the match in Malaysia. And I could go to the Macau match only because I know someone was working there. As a die-hard fan for Pete (and now Roger too), I just feel obligated to tell folks what actually happened as best as I can and hopefully could correct some "not-so-right" assumptions on both players.
Roger mentioned to the media here that there is a very good chance that he and Pete will play again in the U.S. so if that turns out to be true, for those of you who lives in the States, you guys JUST HAVE TO GO!

A few more stories on Roger ...

1) An ex-colleague of mine shared an apartment with a Swiss lady in Hong Kong. When Roger played here in 2003 (together with Ferraro/Sharapova/V.Williams), he actually went to her apartment by himself (no security guards and stuff like that) and went out to have dinner with her. Only then we knew he has personal friends in HK and he travelled around just like a 'regular' guy!

2) A young/pretty lady friend of mine who lives in Melbourne bumped into Federer 7am in the morning in the parking lot of the Crown Casino during last year's Aussie Open. Federer was waiting for the valet parking attendant to pick up his car for him to go to the stadium for some early practice. My friend was too shocked to think of anything and just said hello to him. Roger actually blushed and was very shy. We all teased that friend of mine that she should just asked him out and asked him to give her friends some free lessons!

Seriously all of us there saw them chatted to each other before and after the match. A friend of mine also attended the press conference and we all agreed that these 2 guys respect each other tremendously and they did almost everything together in their trips in Asia. (After the Macau match, they had a private ferry brought them to HK for dinner together before their late night flight). I guess both are grateful that the 2 greatest players of all time are still fit and have the hearts to let go of their pride/ego and enjoyed/challenged themselves in front of us.

Life, for us fans, can't get better than this you know :)
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
You're one of the few people who can get to say they say 26 slams of talent on the one court.

cheers good write up. ;)
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Im match 3 I loved that point at 6-6 8-9. Fed went for a big 2nd serve down the centre, it was exactly the same serve he hit when he had break point against him at wimbledon in 2001 at 4-4 in the 5th set. Last time in 2001 Pete hit a forehand and Fed picked it off, this time Pete stepped in and and crushed it and left fed stunned.

How did that shot look from your viewpoint watching it live?
 

pound cat

G.O.A.T.
If anyone is interested in DVD's of these matches, they are available from a vendor I have dealt with many times. He is from California, is honest, prompt, and has a HUGE number of matches from all eras.

E-mail him for a list of his matches....

BKSELES@aol.com

His name is Brian...
 

desmondchan

New User
Hi The Natural,
That was for sure one of the defining moments in that match. Anyone who has taken tennis lessons would know what 'split step' is and a player would initiate his/her movement right after he/she completed his/her split step. (Pete is more pronunced especially on return serves; Roger's more subtle) For the particular shot, Roger completed that movement but simply had no idea on where Pete's ball was going. It's because Pete did a great job to disguise his forehand. I wish all of you were there. The roar from the crowd; the emotions all around and the chance to root for Pete one more time is simply not what money can buy :)

That said, both men did a great job in disguising their shots. Serving in particular. Tosses were the same for aces going for the "T" or the opposite side; and both hide the movement of their right arm throughout their serving motions. Masters at work. Period.

With no disrespect to Pound Cat; I actually have both the Korea and the Macau matches on DVD in ultra-high resolution. (The KL match in long play mode and is not completed ..) It's just that I have yet to find the time to chop it into pieces before I can upload it to YouTube. I will learn! Stuff like this is meant to be shared for the sake of the fans as well as for the sports.

I read some other threads here in the forum and I have to say it really hurts. It's a free world so of course people can say what they want to say. But to see stuff such as "they're just playing for money"; "it's just "entertainment"; or concluded Roger was not serious because he was wearing his Rolex, etc .... Guys, we need to use our hearts as well as our heads before spilling words out from our mouths a.k.a "think before you say". First, it's not like both Pete and Roger are living on the bread line, right? Second, Roger was the one to invite Pete to play with him and asked his agent to get in touch with Pete earlier in the year. Both men loved the idea of exhibition matches (or possibly what else??) and both were eagered to break the ice. Hence Pete invited Roger to stay in his place in LA and they practiced and played for a few days. 1st day was just hitting ball for 3 to 4 hours. The next day was more competitive and the fact was Pete was able to hold his own serves and still Roger won. And that makes sense, ok! And everyone knows what happened next.

Please appreciate the potential downside/pressure both players would have to face. Pete IS still the man to beat and he has nothing else to prove (he retired!) He had to train and train and run the risks of making a fool out of himself if he lose to Roger 6-0 or 6-1 in all these matches. Roger, on the other hand, is expected to win (He said this himself) and now he lost 1 very close match and now fans all around the world are asking questions. At the end of the day, they did that only because they love to play each other and want to do it before Pete is getting too old. As simply as that.

And when did anyone see Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods "take it easy" in lesser tournments or "entertainment" matches made for TV? Roger is up there with these guys and he is a true champion/competitor and unless someone writing these threads win more Grand Slams than he does, who in the world are these guys saying Roger was not serious?

Lucky we still have a few that have some common sense .. sigh ...
 
L

lordmanji

Guest
my two cents: i think fed, after seoul, was trying his darndest to beat pete in all three exos. you don't get to 12 grand slams with an unambitious mindset. also, he was genuinely disappointed after the match and looks to be eager to exact revenge in march. fed is also very aware of the GOAT debate and that appearances are everything. that's why i think fed wanted to beat sampras 3-0, to end the debate. but if anything, that door has opened slightly further.

the shock was that pete actually beat fed, i think fair and square, despite the age difference etc. before i had thought fed would beat sampras 9/10 anywhere, but sampras' win at the exo has bolstered the argument that sampras could give fed a challenge especially on a fast surface. so perhaps the series would be more evenly split like 6/10 fed.
 

David L

Hall of Fame
Someone posted the assessment of another guy who attended these matches and they came to the opposite conclusion about them, that being they were not played at full tilt. So it seems opinion is always going to be divided on this question. To me it seems obvious they were not played at full tilt.
 
Last edited:

desmondchan

New User
Hi David,
I guess the whole point is people usually choose to see what they want to see. Meaning for this particular instance they walked into the stadium with their own assumptions even before the matches started. Say if I am a die-hard Pete's fan, I would just recalled Pete's magical shots and can't even remember Roger was there - and vice versa for die-hard Roger's fan. Same goes for the 'seriousness' of these matches ... "Oh! It's called an exhibition so whatever they do out there it mustn't be serious then" and I saw folks picking up on small things (i.e. Roger was wearing his Rolex!) to magnify their subjective thoughts.
All I have been trying to do was to be a bit more objective since 1) I was fortunate enough to be there ... twice, 2) a friend of mine, who himself is USPTA Pro 1 certified, worked as well as know folks who work there. So I did got to know a little bit more stuff than other 'regular' spectators.
Anyway, the facts are they seriously practiced in private every time before every match. They were also serving their hearts out pounding serves over 200km/hr almost every time. And when they went for their winners there were no reservation/mercy to their opponents. That's the facts and how people read them it's really up to them. Cheers.
 
D

Deleted member 3771

Guest
Cheers awsome, great to read all the extra details and subtleties of the event. ;)

I've sent you an email about something

Hi The Natural,
That was for sure one of the defining moments in that match. Anyone who has taken tennis lessons would know what 'split step' is and a player would initiate his/her movement right after he/she completed his/her split step. (Pete is more pronunced especially on return serves; Roger's more subtle) For the particular shot, Roger completed that movement but simply had no idea on where Pete's ball was going. It's because Pete did a great job to disguise his forehand. I wish all of you were there. The roar from the crowd; the emotions all around and the chance to root for Pete one more time is simply not what money can buy :)

That said, both men did a great job in disguising their shots. Serving in particular. Tosses were the same for aces going for the "T" or the opposite side; and both hide the movement of their right arm throughout their serving motions. Masters at work. Period.

With no disrespect to Pound Cat; I actually have both the Korea and the Macau matches on DVD in ultra-high resolution. (The KL match in long play mode and is not completed ..) It's just that I have yet to find the time to chop it into pieces before I can upload it to YouTube. I will learn! Stuff like this is meant to be shared for the sake of the fans as well as for the sports.

I read some other threads here in the forum and I have to say it really hurts. It's a free world so of course people can say what they want to say. But to see stuff such as "they're just playing for money"; "it's just "entertainment"; or concluded Roger was not serious because he was wearing his Rolex, etc .... Guys, we need to use our hearts as well as our heads before spilling words out from our mouths a.k.a "think before you say". First, it's not like both Pete and Roger are living on the bread line, right? Second, Roger was the one to invite Pete to play with him and asked his agent to get in touch with Pete earlier in the year. Both men loved the idea of exhibition matches (or possibly what else??) and both were eagered to break the ice. Hence Pete invited Roger to stay in his place in LA and they practiced and played for a few days. 1st day was just hitting ball for 3 to 4 hours. The next day was more competitive and the fact was Pete was able to hold his own serves and still Roger won. And that makes sense, ok! And everyone knows what happened next.

Please appreciate the potential downside/pressure both players would have to face. Pete IS still the man to beat and he has nothing else to prove (he retired!) He had to train and train and run the risks of making a fool out of himself if he lose to Roger 6-0 or 6-1 in all these matches. Roger, on the other hand, is expected to win (He said this himself) and now he lost 1 very close match and now fans all around the world are asking questions. At the end of the day, they did that only because they love to play each other and want to do it before Pete is getting too old. As simply as that.

And when did anyone see Michael Jordan or Tiger Woods "take it easy" in lesser tournments or "entertainment" matches made for TV? Roger is up there with these guys and he is a true champion/competitor and unless someone writing these threads win more Grand Slams than he does, who in the world are these guys saying Roger was not serious?

Lucky we still have a few that have some common sense .. sigh ...
 
Top